Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Internal clashes about the government insurance option have begun to spill into the open. Pictured: Harry Reid, John Rockefeller, Max Baucus and Kent Conrad.
AP photo composite by POLITICO

Rockefeller has sparred privately with Conrad and Baucus during their Democrat-only Finance Committee meetings about what Rockefeller views as a disregard for measures that would make insurance truly affordable to the poor in West Virginia. But when Rockefeller emerged from those meetings, he tended to deliver only cryptic statements to the media.

On Thursday, however, he stopped putting on a polite face. In a warning shot of sorts, he sent letters to the Government Accountability Office, the National Cooperative Business Association and the Agriculture Department, asking dozens of questions about the history, success rate and legal, regulatory and licensure requirements of cooperatives — questions he said he has yet to receive answers from by the committee.

“I don’t think he is very happy with me, and I regret that,” Rockefeller said of Conrad. “I can’t worry about that.”

Rockefeller said he started looking into health cooperatives and found there are about 20 in the country, but only two with a strong track record — Group Health Cooperative of Washington state and HealthPartners of Minneapolis.

“If you are going to fight the insurance industry with a system that might fail, I sort of feel an obligation to know about that and to learn about that,” Rockefeller said. “I can’t vote now or later for something in which the big insurance companies are going to beat the tar out of what are totally nonexistent health care co-ops.”

Conrad said Rockefeller is missing a big point: The cooperatives would operate in an overhauled health care system with 40 million new entrants in the market and $6 billion in startup funds.

Under the Finance Committee proposal, co-ops could form on the state, regional and national level. If one state lacks a co-op, adjoining states could move in and offer one. There could be a national co-op as well, but it would need to be licensed in every state, Conrad said.

“There are not the votes for the public option in the U.S. Senate,” Conrad said in an interview Saturday. “My grandmother said you can curse the darkness, or light the candle. You can wish and hope and push for something that according to every vote count will not get enough votes in the U.S. Senate. That was the reason I was asked to come up with the alternative.”

But if the fight in the House last week is any indication, public plan proponents in the Senate are unlikely to give up easily.

“Of the thousands of issues we address in this legislation, only a handful give us an opportunity to make real progress,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who pushed to protect the public plan. “This is one of them.”

If the co-op makes it through the Finance Committee, it would likely set up a colossal lobbying war when Reid merges the bill with one approved by the Senate health committee, which approved a public plan similar to one in the House bill.

At some point, one side is going to have to give in — or walk, forcing Democratic congressional leaders to use a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation. It would allow Democrats to pass a bill in the Senate with a simple majority, rather than with the 60-vote, filibuster-proof threshold.

“If it is a choice between getting a good health care bill and doing it in reconciliation, I will take that in a shot,” Rockefeller said. “What I don’t like is no result. And if it takes more time to get a result — even if has to be done through reconciliation as a last resort — don’t think I am going to lose sleep over that.”

Public option or bust is what I say. Anything less is not real reform.

In nations with single payer healthcare, filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills is unheard of. Are those that oppose a public plan willing to admit that having countless Americans going bankrupt an acceptable trade off compared to the alternative?

Let's also remember that many of those that are fearmongering about Obama's health care reform were the same voices that were fearmongering about Iraq and WMD. Look at how wrong they were then. Why believe their words now? Why get fooled a 2nd time by those that are nothing more than mouthpieces for the status quo and super rich that cares nothing about the common man?

Why are those opposed to health care reform eager to point out the minor problems with Canada's system but for years have ignored the huge problems we have in the US with health care being too expensive, the personal bankruptcies, and the uninsured? Why even bother taking their opinion seriously at all?

Let's also remember that many of those that are fearmongering about Obama's health care reform were the same voices that were fearmongering about Iraq and WMD. Look at how wrong they were then. Why believe their words now? Why get fooled a 2nd time by those that are nothing more than mouthpieces for the status quo and super rich that cares nothing about the common man?

In nations with single payer healthcare, filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills is unheard of. Are those that oppose a public plan willing to admit that having countless Americans going bankrupt an acceptable trade off compared to the alternative?